DennisM
Established
I recently exposed a roll of Ilford Delta 100 and loaded it onto a reel. Checked the packaging (exp 6/2020) and noted that Dev time for DD-X 1:4 at 68 degrees was 12 min. Then I checked Ilford's on-line development table; lo and behold the time for the same developer, time, & dilution was 10.5 min. Sent an e-mail to Ilford Technical asking for clarification. Received an e-mail response the next morning advising me that the time was recently changed to 10.5 min and that the on-line times are the most up-to-date. He went on to add that it's taking some time for the packaging to "work its way through the system." Don't know what precipitated the change - a change in the emulsion? or the developer? Haven't developed it yet, but will use the 10.5 min time. Curious if anyone seen anything similar with other Ilford films?
robert blu
quiet photographer
A good question...it would be interesting to know if Ilford suggest different times for wet printing and for scanning...naybe they noticed many user work with the hybrid workflow therefore adapt suggestions...or the opposite...just my thinking...
css9450
Mentor
Hmmmm... I have some brand new boxes here at the office, so out of curiosity I opened one and looked. What most concerned me, was that there were some developers (most notably Rodinal) no longer listed. I am certain it used to be there. Its not on the website either. I have some older boxes at home.... I'll have to check them when I get home.
DennisM
Established
Rodinal Times
Rodinal Times
Rodinal Times
Rodinal is listed on the Delta 100 packaging (Exp Jun 2020). And, the Massive Development Chart shows 12 min for Delta 100 in DD-X 2 68 degrees F which is different from Ilford's on-line chart.
CharlesDAMorgan
Mentor
I treat any time on Massive Development as suspect unless cross checked with the manufacturers data, anybody can add a development time.
I hadn't heard of any changes but 12 down to 10.5 is a reasonable change. What results were you previously getting. Try a test roll and see how you get on with the new time.
I hadn't heard of any changes but 12 down to 10.5 is a reasonable change. What results were you previously getting. Try a test roll and see how you get on with the new time.
css9450
Mentor
That's indeed strange; my package is Nov. 2021 and its no longer listed. But mine does agree with yours - DD-X is 12 minutes.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Rodinal is still listed in Ilford's latest tech data sheep for Delta 100, which was last updated in November, 2018.
Here's the link to download it as a PDF --> Delta 100 Tech Sheet
Bill Clark
Mentor
When I develop film I lean to a little longer developing time. If the negatives are a little darker I can run the enlarger exposure longer but weak negatives are harder for me at least, especially if detail is lost. However, the black and white films I use have a fair amount of latitude.
Just my thoughts and experience.
Just my thoughts and experience.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
That is a very bad idea. Longer developing times do NOT give the same effect as longer exposure. Instead, it increases contrast which makes it hard to print the film with full highlight and shadow detail.
Bill Clark
Mentor
Hasn’t been a very bad idea for me Chris.
I use RC vari contrast paper with a color head on my Omega enlarger.
There are numerous variables with photography, very few absolutes, especially with black & white photography.
If there are these variables, who is to say what is a bad idea or a good idea?
I kind of equate this photography stuff to weather forecasting here. Some say this is going to happen and, many times, it doesn’t.
And I’ve been doing this for over 60 years!
It works for me.
Whatever.
john_s
Well-known
We all do our own adjustments as we learn and progress. I have found that reducing development times gives me better results, especially now that practically all papers now available here are VC which I'm sure behave better at higher enlarger contrast settings (filters or colour heads etc). A tad more exposure in the camera helps me too.
I have lots of negs from the 1970s when I slavishly followed manufacturers' instructions which I still find difficult to print because of their high contrast. Obviously scene illumination plays a part.
Although I don't scan, less contrast would help there too, I suppose.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
There is a good reason for what I wrote. VC paper allows more increase in contrast than decrease. Remember that Grade 2 is standard contrast, but VC paper can go up to grade 5. It is easier to increase the contrast from a low contrast negative than it is to lower the contrast of an overdeveloped one.
css9450
Mentor
Yep, still there and its still 14 minutes at 1:50 dilution at 68 degrees. But on the inside of the film boxes, it and a few others are no longer printed (I found an old box at home and compared). Strange, but not a big deal.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I use MDC all the time. Never read manufacturer tiny letters
All of these time mongering is not a consern with regular Ilford Harman films.
I find only Delta 100, 400 and Pan F 50 to be very finicky. This is why I don't use them anymore.
DennisM
Established
A Postscript
A Postscript
Per Ilford's input, I processed my Delta 100 120 roll (exposed in a Mamiya 6; camera metered exposures) for 10.5 min (DD-X; 1:4; 68 degrees F). Negatives look great; density appears "right"; comparable to processed Ilford 35mm B&W negatives (HP-5 Plus & Delta 400). The Delta 120 negatives scanned beautifully (Epson V600).
A Postscript
Per Ilford's input, I processed my Delta 100 120 roll (exposed in a Mamiya 6; camera metered exposures) for 10.5 min (DD-X; 1:4; 68 degrees F). Negatives look great; density appears "right"; comparable to processed Ilford 35mm B&W negatives (HP-5 Plus & Delta 400). The Delta 120 negatives scanned beautifully (Epson V600).
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Indeed! IMO parts of Massive Dev. could be filed under fiction - or possibly humor...
Chris